Final answer:
Stare decisis is a legal principle that directs courts to follow precedents, seen prominently in the Roe v. Wade case which established abortion rights. Despite this, precedents can be revisited, especially as court compositions and societal values change, as evidenced by the evolution of abortion laws following Roe v. Wade.
Step-by-step explanation:
The principle of stare decisis, which means "let the decision stand" in Latin, mandates that judges are expected to follow legal precedents set by previous judicial decisions. This practice is a cornerstone of the American legal system, providing consistency and reliability in the law. The use of precedent ensures that cases with "substantially the same" facts are approached in a similar manner. However, flexibility is embedded within the doctrine; as societal values and court compositions change, precedents can be revisited and potentially overturned. A well-known example of this is Roe v. Wade, a landmark Supreme Court decision from 1973 that recognized the constitutional right to abortion under certain circumstances. This decision has set a precedent for numerous cases relating to abortion rights.
Roe v. Wade has been subjected to various interpretations and modifications over the years. Notably, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the Supreme Court upheld the right to an abortion but allowed for certain state restrictions under the "undue burden" standard. This reflects how the court tailors past decisions to contemporary contexts using stare decisis as a lens through which decisions are made or altered. The case vividly demonstrates how the selection of judges impacts court rulings and precedents over time.